I wonder whether those that were taking the environment in to consideration for the development thought beyond the project to what environmental impacts could be lessened by the project. I'm not a Musk fanboy, but if these tunnels will work the way he's suggesting, the amount of traffic that would be removed from the roads (and by extension, the pollution) would probably be a net benefit to the environment.

Which is the point of an environmental assessment: to look at the benefits and cost to the environment and document the net result.

This isn’t about declaring the project a hazard to the environment, this is skipping the process to determine if it is or isn’t a net good.

Who foots the bill for such an assessment?

Whoever is paying for the project. The same as who pays for all the permits and inspections.

I would think that's the reason why Boring Co. cancelled the project then. They probably need to get some "MVP" tunnels up and running as soon and as cheaply as possible.

> traffic that would be removed from the roads (and by extension, the pollution)

I don't understand how any pollution would be removed, just because it's now in tunnels doesn't equal it being gone.

Wouldn't it just be blasted back out through the ventilation system? Or were there plans to build some kind of "pollution scrubbing" into those?

I think the tunnels would run electric cars/trains only.

Also, cars use a minimum of CO2/mile when traveling at 40mph. Time spent idling in traffic is time spent burning gas to no purpose and to the extent that these tunnels decrease surface traffic there are add on benefits.

Okay, but what about the (probably massive) upfront environmental costs of digging the tunnels and building their infrastructure?

> the amount of traffic that would be removed from the roads

seriously, how would that work?

any expansion of road capacity in LA is immediately used up and oversaturated. if you build it they will come. if you free roads up by providing an alternative like Musk's tunnel system, someone else will still come and fill the roads back up, because, "hey, traffic is moving again."

Cars fill the capacity of the roads. LA will just get more cars.

LA deserves better public transit.

Where do you think the pollution from all those added cars is going to go?

I would question if it would actually lower traffic, or just allow more people to travel.

>or just allow more people to travel.

Which is an increase in quality of life for those who would have otherwise forgone those trips. Either way it's a win.

Whether it's a big enough win to be worth the cost is a perpetual debate with projects like this.

The biggest win -if it works as expected- would be the influence on other cities to do similar projects and focus on creating fast-and-electric-powered alternatives to move cars; also there may be a gain in safety issues due not relying in the driving skills of its users.

An increase in quality of life? Really? Who is to tell? Maybe those people would have done something more fulfilling instead of whatever they did as the porpose of those trips.

"Who is to tell?"

Generally the person themselves should be the one to tell. Other systems have not worked out so well.

Oddly enough, currently the opposite is true. All the construction blocks being put up sometimes in the name of environmental assessment are pushing people out of dense areas and into sprawling suburbs, with people taking on huge commutes to get to work.

Where is the environmental assessment on NIMBY-ism I wonder? :/

There is a lot of construction going on in LA right now. It's actually quite easy to get new construction approved if you just follow the rules.

Of course, if you choose not to follow the rules and processes for development...it's very difficult.

Elon's learning the hard way that not following the rules can make his pet projects difficult or even impossible.

I've read articles that talk about that debate. Indeed, I tend to agree that development to support denser population is often an environmental net win over the immediate local environmental impacts, but I suppose it should be case-by-case.

All states have some form of this, but CA takes it to another level.